User: Hob_Gadling

He is consistently bad faith; straw manning, condescending, bullying, etc....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_1;

"If you find a reliable source that agrees with Kennedy's defamation of people who disagree with his crazy anti-science stance ("false claims both Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine"), then you can come back and contest the word "false"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_2;

"Are you making WP:LEGAL threats?" -- Be sure to read Lindosland's comment Hob responded to so to see how ridiculous of a response this was.

"If you do not agree with what the sources say or with the way Wikipedia works, that is your problem."

"In short, you have two conflicting accounts from two differents sources: the scientific community and Wikipedia on one hand and Kennedy and his antivax troops on the other. And if source A and source B contradict each other, obviously source A must be wrong. Which, in this case, is the scientific community and Wikipedia. Sound logic, as always in this area."

"We have reliable sources calling him an anti-vaxxer, and we would not be "a credible source of information" if we omitted that information. Your pharma shill gambit fools no one here."

"The article says he made false claims about Fauci. That is correct, according to reliable sources. What is your problem? You want that fact hidden?"

"Bullshit. Go to some forum to whine. This is not a forum."

"This article is based on reliable sources. They say Kennedy's stance on vaccines is wrong. End of story."

"You have "disproved" nothing. If you can give a good reason why any of the sources used in the article should not be regarded as reliable, bring it. Otherwise, go away."

"Exactly what it says: Let's see what other users think. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3;

"Your proposed edit Who are you talking to? The indentation says it is me, but I did not suggest any edits. Neither did M.boli. And the one above that one, which actually does propose an edit, seems to be you yourself."

"Why? It seems kind of important that if this guy becomes the Democrat candidate, Americans will have to choose between two people who live in parallel fantasy universes. (It's probably a given that the Republican candidate will be no better. Their sane wing has been tiny and weak for several decades now.)" - Hob knows to keep things related to improving the article (archive 2, "This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article.") yet he is taking shots at RFK Jr and Trump here.

"His "Children's Health Defense" regularly equates mainstream scientists with Nazis." - evidence?

"Yeah, he also sleeps and eats every day, which is also something far different. So what?"

"Nobody cares. Discussions are not about the discussers' positions, they are about their reasoning"

"What happens if these government "experts" are wrong and that's not revealed until a decade from now Come back when that happens. Until then, we will use the knowledge we have now (which is that Kennedy's disinformation is spreading disease and killing children by convincing their parents and the parents of their neighbors not to protect them by vaccination). See WP:CRYSTALBALL" -- I think the use of crystalball here is excellent, but everything Hob said leading up to this is bullying, condescension, and borderline harassment of anyone on the page who disagrees with him.

"Can we stop this? This is not a forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. Go acquire competence (see WP:CIR), and come back when you know how to use valid reasoning."

Two examples of straw manning; "I did read OR. I'm not applying my own thoughts -- making a claim. Please re-read my OP." - this quote is of me.

"'I didn't say' Yes you did."

"That may be the case in a very few cases, but in general, it is just the Dunning-Kruger effect."

"Not continuing this losing battle is a great idea, although the reason for it is bad because telling an inexperienced person that they are inexperienced is not an insult."

That's only Archive 1-3 (of 6) of one Wikipedia article so I could continue, but I hopefully that is sufficient evidence to convince any reader that Hob Gadling is in bad faith. Personally, I'm hoping to see he is no longer in Talk tabs because so many of his discussions are disruptive to the progressive flow of the article. I am also hoping to see his editing privileges get removed. Cmsmith93 (talk)

To be clear: you're reporting an editor for edits made in June 2023 and all the way back to 2021? Is there any recent behavior that's concerning you? Otherwise this report is stale. You mention that you "could continue" with newer talk pages — I would recommend you do so, and perhaps try again with this report with behavior that is actually actionable (if it exists) rather than scraping an editor's history more than two years back. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've topic banned Cmsmith93 from AP2 for WP:CIR, WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:IDHT. While Hob Gadling's interaction style could use some improvement, Cmsmith93's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, despite ample information being provided, has been a drain on editor time and patience for quite a while now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that Cmsmith93 is fortunate to receive such a minor sanction. I would have indefinitely blocked this editor for TLDR axe grinding. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A block which I would have supported. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

BarrySpinno (talk · contribs · logs) I reviewed this article Draft:British Airways plc v Commission and its seemingly unsourced and is now in draft. Its been in draft before which I never noticed. Its a legal article and its a single source. Its a copy and paste from the legal site onto Wikipedia. There is no context on it for the average reader, or indeed anybody who isn't a lawyer. One of the articles that editor wrote was at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 which seems to indicate its notable. Its the law the land in Australia. But there must be more than that, like e.g. why it came about, the history of it. Every article that reviewers have looked at, has been sent to draft. If that perfectly correct. For me it just a straight copy and paste exercise with little value to the reader. It is a bit of a dichotomy. This may be the wrong venue for this. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

scope creep, I do not understand why this matter is at ANI. The whole purpose of draft space is to allow ongoing work on a topic, which is the case here. When I look at BarrySpinno's talk page, I see a bunch of canned template alerts and warnings, that BarrySpinno often responds to with replies and follow-up questions. And yet no other editor has engaged this relatively new editor in actual human-to-human communication about things like our expectations on sourcing and how to develop coverage of a topic in sandbox or draft space before adding it as an encyclopedia article. I think that sort of human interaction should come long before an ANI report. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the wrong venue. It is a draft article - the copy paste might be an issue but it looks quoted and the article is work in progress so not sure what the issue is. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think your probably right. That is cogent advice. Close this, please. 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

FrankKataklian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the second time this user had edited the Irredentism article to insert non-neutral language reflecting an Armenian POV. I'm not active in this particular topic area but I seem to recall there is a WP:AC/CT arbcom ruling on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

Also looking at their short contribution history, their very first edit was [1] to add a link to Furry fandom to an article concerning Turkish nationalist group. I'm wondering if a WP:NOTHERE block may be in order. WCM_email 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Troll. Introduced to the door. Courcelles (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This morning Lee Vilenski raised the issue of YoloMc8562’s user page with them.[2] In short, the user page appears to be a collection of personal blogs about YoloMc8562’s video game experiences, documenting fictional professional wrestling matches on a wrestling video game, as well as their own commentary and reviews of this fan fiction.

I concurred with Lee’s comment[3] and also highlighted a particularly problematic statement that was in there. I informed YoloMc8562 that I would remove the material per WP:WEBHOST and advised that they not restore it. Regardless they have done so. There are also clear issues with the size of the page.

I’m bringing this here as it appears to be a clear violation of WP:WEBHOST, but YoloMc8562 does not seem willing to cooperate. — Czello ^(music) 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Very clearly has a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and unable/unwilling to read the policy on userpages. Whilst we do allow some content that isn't strictly aligned with Wikipedia's aims in userspace, we don't support a video game blog.

Their responses when told and the information was removed isn't fantastic. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a note they've moved the information to User:YoloMc8562/sandbox, probably to try and mask that it exists. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I did it so if it gets removed again I still have somewhere to store the text. YoloMc8562 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You do have somewhere to store the text: your own personal computer's hard drive. Wikipedia is not a webhost, no matter where on its servers you seek to stash your personal blog. Such content is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, full stop, and you risk being blocked as WP:NOTHERE if you persist in trying. Ravenswing 10:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that YoloMc8562 just re-added the content after the page was speedily deleted, before removing it again – I suspect so that they have it in the edit history and can refer back to it. Not sure if that's still rule-violating, but worth mentioning. — Czello ^(music) 11:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I deleted the sandbox as an obvious WP:U5. What is it with wrestling editors and disruption? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel a good 50% of my time in this corner of Wikipedia is dealing with disruption, unfortunately.

Are you able to look at the issue above your comment, where they briefly restored the content so it's still in the edit history? — Czello ^(music) 11:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to just re-delete the page(s). It seems very clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather have a host for a video game record. I'd support a block in this instance, but I'm a bit close to it to handle it myself. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol the stalking is insane YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not just save this information on your own computer/cloud rather than using Wikipedia for something it's not designed for? — Czello ^(music) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has the templates I need (i.e. {{Pro wrestling results table}} and {{Pro wrestling title reign}}) no other website have them so I don't know where else to put it. I'd use a Word document or something but yeah. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can create a personal Miraheze wiki and import the Wikipedia templates there! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait really? What's Miraheze? YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A place to host your own wikis, you can import Wikipedia templates and stuff there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried it and it doesn't have the templates I need, thanks for the help though, I don't know where else to try. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You would have to create such a thing. You don't just have the right to host it here. It's especially onorous as you have well over 500 edits (basically half) on this blog. Messages like "this is cringe" and "the stalking is insane" isn't helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can import them, there is a tool for that. Although this is getting a bit off-topic, and I invite you to ask on Miraheze for help on importing Wikipedia templates there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Once we establish that someone is WP:HERE, I don't know why we care what sort of nonsense they have on their user page. I have a reference to Katamari Damacy, The Prisoner, chess, other silliness, and some other personal information on my userpage. My user talk page has a section for music recommendations. I got all of these ideas from looking at other people's pages, many of which have much, much more of this sort of content. We were here not long ago with a user whose user and user talk pages are so long and packed with images that they frequently crash people's browsers or fail to load, and for the Nth time there was no action. It's a classic example of a rule we only enforce on new users. How about this: Yolo, (1) it's in the "even pushing it for an experienced user to get away with" territory in terms of size. Keep is shorter. (2) Consider putting it on a subpage. (3) Be really careful not to look like you're here primarily to maintain that page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The user you're referencing is notoriously immune to long-term action. Their ability to unduly get away with it shouldn't open the door to others being able to; indeed, this shouldn't be a case of where it's only enforced on new users and should instead be enforced across the board. I don't think it's helpful to give a green light to YoloMc8562 on this when their pages have already been deleted by two different admins. — Czello ^(music) 13:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Just thought I'd say I only copied and pasted it over to my sandbox (which got deleted as I said) because I was panicking that I was gonna lose it, however I was able to copy and paste it over to a Notepad document. Sorry for forgetting to then remove it from the sandbox before it got deleted, Sorry for my reaction over this, I was just annoyed over what I felt was people not minding their own business, but I can understand why it was deleted. Its just annoying its happened this late because I can't really copy and paste it over to another website except Wikipedia because it uses templates from here. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that comment. I echo Chaotic Enby's comment that Miraheze would suit you better (I think there are other fan wikis that might also be available). Even if importing the table from here is difficult, they're likely to have suitable alternatives that might work. If all else fails, I'd never overlook trusty Microsoft Excel / Google Sheets for being able to build tables quickly and easily. — Czello ^(music) 13:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just Miraheze seems very bare bones with seemingly not much on there, I'm not sure on how to transfer it over because I don't have the Wikipedia page with it anymore and I don't have an XML file, and I don't know any other fan wikis :P YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Miraheze has a tool to import a given Wikipedia template and all of the subtemplates it uses at the same time, which I used quite a few times on a wiki I created there. Otherwise, Fandom is another wiki host that is arguably less powerful technically but more intuitive to use and easier to set up. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I know but I don't know how to find it lol, Fandom is another site I tried, but once again, the templates being the problem. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The tl;dr is: create a Miraheze wiki → create a page on your new wiki → paste your content on that page → import the templates you need with the import tool → it should work. Feel free to ask Miraheze volunteers if there's any issue you encounter. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I already made the page, I just don't know how to find the import tool haha. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

yourdomain.miraheze.org/Wiki/Special:Import ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that now. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what is considered a big size on here because I don't really have any scale for it, My thing is just under 400,000 bytes, I'm not sure what "subpage" I could put it on here, I'd be open to do that, but my user page and sandbox have already been swiftly deleted. Also just thought I'd say I'm not new to WIkipedia, as I saw someone state that on one of my pages earlier, I've had this account since October 2021, and I also edit WWE pages as well as pages for my football team I support (Sheffield Wednesday F.C.). Do you know anywhere else I could put the page? YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, that's not our problem to solve. WaggersTALK 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, but he said put it on a subpage, and I don't know what "subpage" on here to put it on. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to be discussing how to use a different website - it's almost as bad a WP:WEBHOST violation as the original page. With the content now deleted I'm guessing there's no further action to be taken and we can close this thread? WaggersTALK 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean since I'm clearly not gonna be able to put it back on Wikipedia then I guess lol YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

By "subpages" people mean you can create additional pages in user space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YoloMc8562 is your user page, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YoloMc8562/subpage where [subpage] can be just about any valid string of text creates a "subpage" in your userspace. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the content being discussed is not suitable for anywhere in userspace. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As my point earlier, I'm clearly not gonna be able to put this back on here without getting blocked. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean I'm cool to do what @Rhododendrites suggested, which was put it on a subpage, but as stated idk if people would be fine with it. YoloMc8562 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Are we even sure they are here to build an encyclopedia? All they've done since being asked to remove their webhost is to move it to other pages, such as User:YoloMc8562/WWE 2001- Universe Mode/PPV Table and make null edits on their userpage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to block indefinitely as a regular admin action, not as a claimed community consensus. This has gone on long enough and YoloMc8562 either isn't listening or can't understand. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm writing to request assistance with a group of editors who have repeatedly reinserted the same comments "conflict of interests", "reads like an essay", and "duplicates existing content", even though the article that these comments applied to was deleted and completely rewritten. The editors were asked multiple times to justify attaching comments from a deleted article to an entirely new article. But as can be seen from this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:General_Collective_Intelligence , the editors refused to provide any substantive reply. I'm at a loss. I would appreciate any assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CognitiveMMA (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This is as clear a case of WP:NOTHERE as I've ever seen. Highlights include self-citation, attempts to create a POV fork on the topic of their COI, and a maneuver where they moved a draft to Draft:Deleted Article and had it deleted there, apparently so the previous AFC decline messages would not appear on the draft. Efforts to explain anything on their user talk are met with hostility. I think it would be best to save everyone's time and show this editor to the door with a WP:BOOMERANG. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the deleted contributions of Draft:Deleted Article, and I'm seeing some content regarding the Montenegrin Republic of Zeta-Duklja in the deleted contributions. The move referred to by Ollie was to Draft:Deleted Page. Admins can see the version immediately prior to the blank-and-move at this link. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have rejected the draft, WP:NOTESSAY being the primary reason. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There was content related to the "Montenegrin Republic of Zeta-Duklja" what? That is simply untrue. The article was about a form of collective intelligence. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft previously at Draft:Deleted Article was not your draft; the one formerly at Draft:Deleted Page was. Ollie appears to have accidentally misattributed the first one to you. The point of my comment was to direct admins/other editors to the correct draft title. I apologize if my comment above was unclear in this regard. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my issue was that their comments referred to the deleted article, but they kept reinserting their comments even though those comments no longer applied. There is no way this can be within Wikipedia's policies for them to do, and to repeat doing many times without providing explanation despite clearly being requested to provide their reasoning. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy to allow the same group of editors that I'm raising the issue about to be the ones to carry out further actions regarding this complaint, like rejecting the article? Isn't that a conflict of interest? The editor @MrOllie accused me of violating Wikipedia's WP:NOTHERE policy, saying that this is "as clear a case of WP:NOTHERE" as he has ever seen. Where is the self-citation? Where is the conflict of interest? Don't such persistent and false personal attacks violate to consistently and unjustifiably prevent an article from being published or continually removes content without a valid reason, constitute disruptive editing and a violation of the consensus-building process? Furthermore I deleted the old article and created a completely new one in order to address any issues with the article. How can these same group of editors that have been involved ask that I write a new article and complain when I do so? And furthermore can @Seawolf35 state specifically where the article violates any criteria whatsoever of WP:NOTESSAY? If the article does violate any such criteria I'd like to fix it. But falsely claiming it does and refusing to specify any details is disruptive. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The talk page of the editor @Seawolf35 who rejected the article clearly shows that he was cooperating with the editor @MrOllie that I raised the complaint about. For this reason I'm adding him to the complaint as well. Wikipedia is supposed to be about disseminating knowledge, not a personal club to settle vendettas. I don't mind if they provide legitimate reasons for rejecting the article, but providing clearly false reasons like saying that I've cited my own work, and then refusing to provide any detail to their comments ... there has to be some way to address this. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Andy puts it better than I could below. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 06:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Aside from making subjective comments, @AndyTheGrump still doesn't specify any criteria of WP:NOTESSAY that the article violates. Wikipedia editors, since often not experts in every field covered on Wikipedia, are expected to evaluate articles based on specific Wikipedia guidelines and standards, rather than their personal understanding or expertise in the topic. The key aspects they focus on include:

1. Notability: The subject must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is usually demonstrated through coverage in reliable, independent sources.
2. Verifiability: Information must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Editors check if the references provided are credible and relevant to the topic.
3. Neutrality: The content should be written from a neutral point of view, without bias or promotion.
4. Original Research: Wikipedia does not allow original research. All content should be based on published information from reliable sources.
5. Quality and Clarity: The article should be well-written, understandable, and organized, but a deep understanding of the subject matter is not required for this.

It's not reasonable for an editor to reject an article solely because they don't understand the specialized content, provided the article meets the above criteria. CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely reasonable for an article to be rejected because it cannot be understood. The burden rests with the contributor(s) responsible, who have to make it understandable. If they can't do that, putting it in an encyclopaedia serves no purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The rejection of the article was clearly legitimate. It is not just an essay, but a poorly-written one at that, give its failure to explain clearly what the hell it is actually about. Repetition of a phrase doesn't do that, and nor do vague unsourced assertions about sociobiology, political science etc using the term. And neither does more unsourced nonsensical waffle suggesting that 'collective IQ' is some sort of actual thing. Wikipedia is under no obligation to publish the essay, and shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Google Scholar cites 1600 instances of use of the term "collective IQ" in the academic literature. Are we to believe your subjective opinion as an anonymous Wikipedia editor who knows nothing about the topic, or are we to believe credentialed experts who have published articles in peer reviewed academic publications? Regarding vague your comment about "vague unsourced assertions about sociobiology, political science etc." those assertions were reused from the Wikipedia page on collective intelligence to draw a distinction between collective intelligence platforms and general collective intelligence platforms. The content on the collective intelligence page has clearly been published and approved. Saying the article is "poorly-written" is a subjective comment. My request is that any editor who takes the time to comment on this issue please specify the criteria WP:NOTESSAY that the article violates, if any. CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly concur that after reading your draft, I know no more on the topic than I did before. As for expertise, I've been reading poorly-written Wikipedia content for over two decades now, and think I can recognise it when I see it. For example, I'm still trying to figure out what the repeatedly-used word 'platform' is referring to. Clearly not something one stands on, waiting for a train. And I don't think it refers to something a political party comes up with before an election either. 'Platform' could mean all sorts of things, none of which seems obvious from context. As a general rule, whether writing explanatory content, for academia or otherwise, one attempts to write for the benefit of the expected readership, who shouldn't have to read through the whole thing like a detective novel, seeking explanation, only to discover that the explanation is never given. That might possibly have worked for the great Dashiel Hammett, but we don't work that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

At least that's a specific comment that can be addressed by replacing the term "platform" with "software platform". CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In which case I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of the Google Scholar results you found were referring to something else - from a quick sample, they appear to be. I sincerely doubt that sociobiologists for example are referring to software. Or to anything else not (according to their theories) transmitted through good old-fashioned biological DNA. And if you are indeed referring to software, everything but the first paragraph of your draft appears to be off-topic. Or perhaps padding, added to make this hypothetical software platform seem more important than it actually is. Perhaps your efforts would be better directed towards realising the hypothetical, rather than towards trying to convince people how good it is going to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope your comments are just for your entertainment and are not part of this administrative process. You can't replace a comprehensive review of the academic literature with your subjective understanding of a few articles you found on the Internet. If your response sounds even remotely reasonable to you I request that you at least use a chatbot like ChatGPT4 to get some more insight. CognitiveMMA (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked CognitiveMMA as not here to build an encyclopedia. This editor's participation here for several years is summarized by this comment: An editor censoring this important information simply to exercise one’s personal bias in the way that has been done, and continuing to censor that information for years, particularly when that information is potentially important to so many people … what good purpose is served by this? Can you think of many things that are more harmful? Literally, this article is just describing the difference between a collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for some centralized entity, and a general collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for all participants, and it’s saying that understanding the distinction is critical because the difference between the societal impacts of the two is potentially great.. I cannot recall any editor who indignantly hollered about censorship actually contributing positively to this encyclopedia. We do not needed tendentious axe-grinding to right great wrongs by editors who think that opposing their self promotion is somehow the most harmful thing on planet Earth. The editor appears unable to collaborate productively with other Wikipedia editors. The waste of time has come to an end, and the blocked editor is free to promulgate their own theories on some other website. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I got to the last comment prior to yours, Cullen328, and was heading to the editor's talk page to block indefinitely also. On that basis, I clearly support the block. Daniel (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that what this is all about? ...a general collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for all participants...? An imaginary BenthamBot which has ...the greatest happiness of the greatest number... built into its algorithmic soul? If so, I'd have to suggest that we don't need such a Bot here, since Cullen has already found the route to maximum happiness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel. As for you, AndyTheGrump, this is not my discovery and has been well known for over 20 years. The route to maximum happiness comes from complying with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and refraining from self-promotional bullshit artistry. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As usual I slept through all the drama and am waking up to the result. Thank you for the collective input everyone. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why people get into such a fuss over a few mouse clicks, they seem to forget that almost all actions on Wikipedia are easily reversed. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Good block by User:Cullen328 - I became aware of the first version of this draft article on 14 January 2024, when I closed a case request at DRN because it was about a decline of a draft. The subject editor appears to be a self-promoting author who writes incomprehensibly. If I read this sort of stuff ten years ago, I would conclude either that it was badly translated from the French original, or badly translated from the German original, or written by an author whose native language is English but who writes what appears to be bad translation. If I read this sort of stuff in 2024, I conclude either that it was written by a large language model, or was written by an author who writes as if he is a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WesDuDe92811 and Tatthehulk are related by the edit summaries in their contributions. Toketaa^talk 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Both blocked per WP:NOTHERE; it hardly seems worth my while to check which is master and which is sock. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC).

Check by account creation date? Toketaa^talk 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just checked. Wesdude was made first. Toketaa^talk 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Wesdude is now saying that their friend (tat) logged on their account and vandalized. The language of before and after the friend supposedly logged on is different. This could be Wikipedia:LITTLEBROTHER but I am not sure. Toketaa^talk 18:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Then their account was WP:COMPROMISED and needs to remain blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell them to make a new account, link it to the old one via talk page, and after that global lock the old one maybe? Toketaa^talk 19:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If that's true, then they lost control of their account and it's compromised, so they don't get to edit. If false, then they lied and are trolling. Either way, the block should stand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Mainly wondering how they would appeal if they could. Toketaa^talk 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Either they need to create a new account and make a much more secure password, or just simply quit Wikipedia for a while, wait for a couple of years and then create a new account. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So how would someone reply to them saying that? Toketaa^talk 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have actually no idea. Since I'm not an admin with CU rights, I assume that someone like Yamla or NinjaRobotPirate, who both DO have CU rights, can possibly inspect the account (I'm not sure, but probably that's how CU works). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's just an inference. Maybe I'm wrong. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Even then, if they come on a new account and start acting like this again, this definitely will be considered WP:LITTLEBROTHER. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• WesDuDe92811 has already appealed for unblock and an uninvolved admin has declined the appeal. Also, if WesDuDe92811 let Tatthehulk have use of their phone and of their password, they have only themselves to blame. I'm not unblocking anybody. Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC).

  Yeah, I wouldn't recommend it either. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Makes sense, I was just seeing what would happen in that case because I never seen that stuff before. Toketaa^talk 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's really interesting to see this much WP:LITTLEBROTHER being in place. Usually, most blocked users just admit that they made the mistake (even if they are making personal attacks and having incivility), but this? Damn. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not going to lie Wikipedia:LITTLEBROTHER should be remade as a non humor essay and have the humor one moved to a different article. Toketaa^talk 19:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, it depends. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Nissimamon has been persistently removing critical content from his own page, as can be seen here: [4], despite having received several warnings on his talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely from editing the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Should this guy maybe just be blocked as WP:NOTHERE? He’s clearly running an WP:SPA for PR purposes only. Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• TxBangert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, TxBangert removed the redirect at Bradley R. Smith and copied/pasted the contents of the Metapedia article on Smith. (That website is blacklisted but the article can be located via Google.) Metapedia, according to our article on it, is an online wiki-based encyclopedia dedicated to germanophile, fascist, far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, anti-feminist, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, Holocaust-denying and neo-Nazi points of view. The whitewashing of Smith's Holocaust denial is obvious in what TxBangert copied to Wikipedia. I reverted the edit and performed RD1 revision deletion because I found no evidence that it was compatibly licensed, either. I warned TxBangert on their talk page (User talk:TxBangert#January 2024) and then...

... I looked at their most recent edits prior to today, which were to Denial (2016 film), a film also about Holocaust denial, where they added a citation to user reviews on IMDb (an unsuitable source) to justify a statement about how unlikeable they think the main character of the film is. The main character is a portrayal of Deborah Lipstadt, who is involved in a lawsuit against a Holocaust denier.

I have serious concerns about these edits, particularly the ones from today, and suggest that an indefinite block citing Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive would be appropriate. DanCherek (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's two Nazis in two days at ANI, I'm starting to be a little concerned even though they don't look to be the same person. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at their logs/edit history, there's some indication as to who they are. And yes, they appear to be a real nazi. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe due to International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which I imagine causes an annual exodus of bad haircuts leaving their mom's basement. Levivich (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That could be it, unfortunately... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can view Special:Diff/1200610288 two different ways: it goes against MOS:DOCTOR, and it's an attempt to burnish the credentials of holocaust deniers. The pattern is consistent. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the only way I know to contact Wikipedia. I was researching "Steele Dossier" and I think the contents there are Democrat propaganda. I've donated 4 or 5 times and have used Wikipedia as a reliable source, but I now will be very careful and not rely on Wikipedia for the truth. See the article at https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/steele-dossier-fbi-durham-danchenko/index.html

The CNN article is much more reliable. You should make serious efforts to avoid political operatives tampering with articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C200:22F0:0:0:0:182B (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to ANI, should belong in Talk:Steele dossier if anywhere. That CNN article was already discussed in Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 26. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• TxBangert indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC).

I made a contribution to Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties on 7th Jan 2024. Four days later this was reverted by the new user Byte-ul.

Byte-ul claimed my contribution was vandalism and malicious, despite it being on topic and referenced. They reverted a fourth time from their IP address rather than signed in (they claim by mistake - User_talk:Byte-ul).

I opened a new topic on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, asking them to explain their reverts. That unfortunately went nowhere, and my DRN and 3O requests were both closed due to there being issues of user conduct as well.

Byte-ul has engaged in disingenuous reverts and making blatantly false and hypocritical accusations that I made edits to settle personal disputes and harassment.

I request that my contribution be restored, with the two edits suggested by me on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, as the article is now extended-protected.

Ilike2burnthing (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Warned: User talk:Byte-ul#Warning. El_C 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please don't doxx another editor's off-wiki account again, including if you are continuing here an argument from that site (which isn't advised to do in general). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby see my response to User_talk:Ilike2burnthing#c-A_smart_kitten-20240127175800-A_smart_kitten-20240127175300. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who, if anyone, is right here, because much of the discussion appears to be WP:OR based on interpretations of primary source documents. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how, as it is just 'person X asked FOO, entity Y replied BAR', all being referenced.

If the objection is to the phrasing, "[...] citing reports from Germany, France, and Belgium which found no evidence of this," then I suppose this could be changed to just directly quoting from the first reference, "[...] Germany, France and Belgium do not perceive any problems with cooperation with the firm concerned[.]" Ilike2burnthing (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that is a lot of text to go through in that link. Is this matter still outstanding? Is assistance from an administrator still needed? El_C 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

See from 'Suggested resolution' onwards in Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties, as it's the only part I regard as unresolved. Thanks. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

PickleAndPeanutFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a personal attack on me at my talk page cause they believe Jack from Oggy and the Cockroaches is a main character and I don't believe the same. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The user has apologised for losing their temper, so I don't think further action is necessary other than to say, paraphrasing Life of Brian, "Right .... now don't do it again". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Anthroposophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Evidence of WP:MEAT: Google "VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about. Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the. EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you".

Also Google "this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp".

Date: 19 October 2023.

Hard to miss: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22shitting+all+over+Anthroposophy%22

John Penner

January 3 at 2:55 AM ·

calling for a bit of help here — to help with some Vandalism to the wikipedia article for Anthroposophy Wikipedia Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

if you check the Wikipedia Edit HISTORY — you can see how the Anthroposophy entry has been VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. i was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr 😡

someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you could spend a couple minutes to login to Wikipedia and correct just one statement in the article — that would be of use — because right now — this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp

Full quote.

Disclosure: I don't know which editor is John Penner or even if he edited Wikipedia at all. So, I am not WP:OUTING any particular Wikipedia user. Doxxing others is not allowed, but in this case I was simply doxxing myself (Googling my own username).

If you ask me "Is Anthroposophy racist?" my answer is neither yes nor no. I will say it is a mixed bag.

And some people cannot understand that I'm not pushing original research, I'm merely mirroring mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So, if they dislike mainstream scholarship, that is their problem, I'm not a scholar, so I have no contributions to such scholarship. So, if someone lies about their new religious movement, it's not me, I have merely WP:CITED mainstream WP:RS. The mainstream academia does not think highly of their movement, and they think that would be my own fault. Most of the WP:RS I cited there have been published sometime from 10 to 100 years ago. So, it's not like I'm spilling the beans about their secrets, nor like saying anything new. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence from the article history that the Facebook post led to anything. What action are you expecting to be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I don't know which action should be taken. As I had already stated at WP:FTN#And the article about its founder, I find that the amount of newbies and WP:SPAs which have edited Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner in the past four months would be indicating some foul play. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

A dispute about Anthroposophy was heard at AE last November. That complaint was opened by Tgeorgescu as a complaint against User:SamwiseGSix, but it was closed with warnings to both parties. Now Tgeorgescu is opening a complaint about meatpuppetry on the topic of Anthroposophy, whch could possibly lead to admin action if details could be verified. However I don't see any evidence of new editors arriving on the article due to the off-site canvassing. The topic of Anthroposophy falls under WP:PSCI. There was also a Waldorf education Arbcom case which mentioned Anthroposophy, though the sanctions were abolished in 2022. To go any further with this complaint, I think User:Tgeorgescu would need to explain what ongoing abuse could be prevented by some admin action. One option is extended-confirmed protection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because I see the problem, it does not follow that I have a solution. But I'll go for the extended-confirmed protection. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Also at ANI a couple of weeks ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#User who cannot learn what WP:V means. SamwiseGSix hasn't really edited since then. I looked at the history of Anthroposophy and also didn't see any disruption since then.

@Tgeorge ... the off-wiki harassment you're quoting sucks and I'm sorry you're having to deal with that. However, I don't see any problems at the article since the last ANI ... which means no current problem?

I did, though, see this: Special:Diff/1194757415 and Special:Diff/1194757024. I really can't think of any situation where it's OK to say something about another editor in a hidden comment. I'm surprised that didn't get brought up in the last ANI thread, but please don't do this again.

Samwise said they'd walk away from the article at the last ANI, and it seems they have done so. I don't see any disruption since the last ANI -- nothing current -- so I don't see any grounds for ECP or anything else here. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that was prohibited. When someone pointed out it is prohibited, I have ceased performing such hidden comments. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that we have a specific rule against it... but I think everyone would agree that articles are not the place to write anything about editors, even in hidden comments. I mean if someone wants to go around adding <!-- Levivich is awesome --> to articles, I'm sure no one would object. Anyway, thanks for ceasing. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, here are some rules as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, but I agree having specific written rules isn't necessary to understand that commenting on other editors within articles isn't helpful: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses..., Wikipedia is not a soapbox..., and Wikipedia is not a battleground... Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not anyone's pointed out a rule to you, please strive to be as collaborative as possible. It shouldn't be a surprise that personal commentary, wherever it is placed, is not conducive to working co-operatively. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

One suspects that people who belong to a large group might independently become displeased by an extremely popular website's article about them vaguely insinuating that they personally are racists, without there necessarily being a coordinated conspiracy on their part. jp×g🗯️ 17:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not vaguely insinuating, but saying it aloud: Wieringa, Tommy (8 May 2021). "Groene vingers". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Het was een ontmoeting van oude bekenden: nazi-kopstukken als Rudolf Hess en Heinrich Himmler herkenden in Rudolf Steiner al een geestverwant, met zijn theorieën over raszuiverheid, esoterische geneeskunst en biologisch-dynamische landbouw. — It was a meeting of old acquaintances: Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler already recognized a kindred spirit in Rudolf Steiner, with his theories about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) Also search for "Je oren deden zeer van alle quatsch over de superioriteit over het blanke ras". But anyway, just because they have a racialist worldview, it does not mean that Anthroposophists would be malignant racists. I did not find a good way to word this, but it is an essential difference: Anthroposophists are paternalistic racists, not warmongering/oppressive racists. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

So they're racists but with good intentions? Levivich (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This IP keeps coming back. While most of their edits seem to be genuine some of their edits involves adding false cast members such as retired actress Babita [5]. Here they add three actors that definitely are not in the film: [6].

This weird behavior first started at Gulabi (1995 film). Upon watching the film, all of the cast members in the film are already in the actor but the IP goes on to add [7] more actors. See Talk:Gulabi (1995 film), where User:Archer1234 has been reverting unsourced edits. It is unclear what their motive is as they are making Wikipedia both reliable and unreliable at the same time.

A problematic edit is shown here where they add Bengali actor Tarun Kumar Chaterjee to a film he was definitely not in [8].

The IP should either respond to talk page requests (Archer1234 tried at Gulabi talk page) or stop making false edits. Basically when two people have the same name, IMDb links the popular one even if they didn't appear in the film. I think the IP is sourcing their edits from a database because it is highly unlikely that they have access to every low-key Telugu film.

Here [9] the IP adds a film more than ten years before the actor debuted. There is no way to verify this since the film is not online. The IP has been using different IP addresses but most of them are similar [10]. DareshMohan (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of communication, the IP does not appear to source any of their edits. And they often (always?) forget to italicize film titles.

These are the IPv6 ranges from which I have seen them operate actively:

• 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E0A:21:130:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Plus this IP4 range:

• 81.65.88.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) going back to at least August 2023.

They are very prolific, so it will take a lot of effort to scrutinize their edits to separate the wheat from the chaff. It appears that a block on their ranges would have little to no collateral damage.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Some edits cross into Bangladeshi cinema and bring to mind sock Symon Sadik.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Another 19 edits today at 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B. None are explained. Some are correcting errors (good), but many are introducing new claims with no sourcing. Here's one of the unsourced ones adding a film to an actor's filmography: [11] (note, as usual, they do not italicize the film name). Still no communication. Can we get a block with the purpose of encouraging them to discuss our concerns with their edits?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Now they have also jumped over to 81.65.93.69. Same MO: unsourced additions to filmographies and film cast lists. All of the IPs used (IPv6 and IPv4) center around the same metropolitan area.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Archer1234: I don't think they understand the fact that 2 people can have the same name and 1 of them isn't on Wikipedia. Here they added three films to someone who wasn't in the industry till 2006 and here they added a 1990 film to a man who debuted in 2008. DareshMohan (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

After a few days off, they have returned t 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B with dozens of unsourced edits and unexplained content removals.

Can we get a short-term block on the /64 to encourage them to WP:ENGAGE about their editing?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:842A:1BF:1901::/64 for two weeks per the above discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this IP 2A02:C7C:76BF:E100:61A2:CA8A:722:32EC has been continuously vandalising the page Owen Moxon, could we add this to the list of partial blocks? Thanks 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Three edits to an article with bigger problems - a 6 month /32 block seems an unwieldy and probably excessive solution. I've semi'd the page for a bit (and sent a /64 block message). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Charmetric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - New user with a vested interest in removing sourced content from Sikder Group. I have attempted to discuss, with no success. We're getting close to edit war territory here and I could use some intervention from someone with more experience. (User's recent edit summary contains some nasty slander aimed at me, so I need to walk away.) Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it all :) Toketaa^talk 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Unfortunately the page is still a mess - I think your reversions didn't go back far enough. Can you take another look? There has been so much back-and-forth, but I think my edit here is the last good version. Thank you so much. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

yup I forgot that whoopsy! Toketaa^talk 16:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That page history is quite a mess. I've restored an early September version that seems to be stable and in-between periods of large changes. Thank you for recognizing a bad fight and passing up on it when it became personal. @Toketaa I know you are excited to contribute but please try to use the edit summary feature appropriately, especially when reverting things other than obvious vandalism. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't this guy blocked for edit warring? 12 Reverts in one day combined with this talk page comment [12]. Fails WP:CIR and a clear candidate for a WP:NOTHERE block. WCM_email 16:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as 3RR is concerned, remember that An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. and Charmetric's 'undo' actions have occurred in two bursts. But their social behavior does still leave much to be desired. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I now see they did it in 2 bursts (I was looking at their contribution history). I still think it may warrant a WP:NOTHERE block. WCM_email 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this is the right place to report personal attacks (rather than content vandalism issues), but I do still need help dealing with this user; please see this addition to my talk page - if you can even read it - in which Charmetric lashes out further, makes various accusations, and demands I be banned. Some help from a grownup would be much appreciated. Jessicapierce (talk)

(EC) Well I left a message on Charmetric's talk page because I had some hope they were here for the right reasons, but they soundly ignored it, and quite emphatically proved me wrong. I reverted their tirade, I hope that's ok Jessicapierce. This is indeed the correct place to report chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and is not actually meant for vandalism itself (or any content dispute really). GabberFlasted (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE and judging from the comments there is a clear conflict of interest WP:COI and admits to editing on behalf of his employer ie WP:PAID. Just some of the comments:

“

Fraudulent, facist, discriminatory, unethical and truly evil people involed.

”

“

Ban Jessicapierce or atleast remove her unfair advantages giving her an unethcial marginally significant boost over the real people, thosoe who want to keep the world safe, keep the world truthful, keep the world real.

”

“

The reality of what I said comes from the awareness of the broader spectrum here, the money in play to produce these bad actors used to weapons wiki's data as a means to give evil people the freedoms they desire to slander their enemies to such extreme degrees. Jessicapierce plays a role for these people as an enforcer and she is the obvious choice because her wiki account is privileged with attributes allowing here to manipulate this platform for whatever she and here evil business partners desire

”

Spelling mistakes are not mine, so edit warring, personal attacks, only needs a legal threat for a full house. Definitely warrants a block IMHO. WCM_email 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have left a final warning for User:Charmetric. They do seem to be quicly exhausting all assumptions of good faith. I am prepared to issue an indef block if they won't withdraw the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. It's been a while since I ran into anything so heated on Wikipedia - I'm just here to fix commas and alphabetize lists. I hope it goes without saying that I am not, in fact, a fascist (or a "facist"), nor do I have any personal interest in the article. I appreciate the backup, and hope we can all be done dealing with this issue. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have now blocked this user for a week. While the user was never warned about 3RR, and at the time Ed said they had not violated it, to me they have since then, and I would also draw the thread's attention to this apparent effort to log out and make the same edits after reaching three (maybe four) reverts within a few hours, suggesting awareness of the rule. On top of that their general incivility, lack of good faith lean very much toward NOTHERE for me. If the account had been created more recently I would have had no reservations about an indef, and if this behavior continues after the block (assuming they are not the sort of user who will make enough repetitive, abusive and unproductive unblock requests within a short enough period of time as to justify revoking talk access and extending the block), then the next block should be indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO the above block is entirely justified. If there is any more trouble, I would suggest an indefinite page block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem, @EdJohnston, and @Daniel Case, could one of you please remove the edit summary from this diff so the PA attack on Jessicapierce is not immortalized in the article history? If I'm mistaken and this isn't something that can/should be done, my apologies for the needless ping. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In a previous ANI report it was detailed (perhaps too detailed) that NoonIcarus was engaged in activist editing in support of the Venezuelan opposition and attempted to make things personal by deleting an article I created. If you would like to jump into their editing history in that report, it provides a thorough background on their civil POV pushing behavior. This disruptive behavior has, unfortunately, continued. As a disclosure, I have said before that it takes two to be involved in edit warring and I have acknowledged my previous misbehavior in disputes with this user, but please allow me to provide information on how NoonIcarus continues to be disruptive.

NoonIcarus persists with making things personal by WikiHounding my contributions, removing[13][14][15] or driveby tagging[16][17] (a user has also raised concerns about NoonIcarus' tagging)(Edit:--WMrapids (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)) information minutes after it is placed. It was this revert here that was the last straw regarding the continuous hounding; NoonIcarus removed the information (minutes after it was placed) based on previous discussions they had with Storm598, a blocked sockpuppet user who provided inappropriate references (such as opinion articles). This is similar behavior to NoonIcarus' "stable version" argument where NoonIcarus inappropriately enforced a "stable version" by reverting any new content that they didn't deem "stable". In the past, NoonIcarus has justified WkikiHounding behavior by saying that an article is on their watchlist, but when such behavior happens constantly for every edit (especially within minutes) and even devolves into defining a shakedown, it becomes plainly disruptive and makes editing feel hopeless.

In addition, NoonIcarus does not seem to have learned from their previous sanction regarding block deletions on the United States involvement in regime change article, blanking material and moving the goalposts once more by demanding opinions from users on the inclusion of Venezuela in the article (this same issue has been going on for over 4 years) after other users adequately laid out the scope of the article on the talk page.

A previous WP:0RR sanction and the most recent ANI report has done nothing to remedy NoonIcarus' behavior, so something else has to be done. As I have said before, Venezuelan articles already have limited participation, and it sure doesn't help when you have a user like NoonIcarus hounding, removing and stonewalling the work of other contributors.--WMrapids (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to a diff/section of the details of NoonIcarus's WP:0RR sanction please? When was this placed, by whom, and has it ever been violated? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: You can see this in a previous ANI where the closer says about restrictions placed on NoonIcarus:

essentially, this custom restriction limits [NoonIcarus] to 0RR when they have been reverted, absent consensus, and 1RR otherwise.

This restriction was placed by User:El C in January 2020 for a period of one year. As for if the restrictions were violated, I have not gone back that far as interactions with the user only began within the last year. WMrapids (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Edit--WMrapids (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I was careful not to violate the restrictions, asking El C whenever in doubt (1, 2, 3), and later I started being less active in that second half of the year. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: After reviewing the closing comment from January 2020, I noticed that User:El C notes:

this note by Jamez42 was probably the wrong call. I'm not sure I would call it canvassing outright, but it certainly skits its boundaries.

Well, it seems that NoonIcarus did not learn from this warning either and has continued their apparent borderline canvassing by listing POV tags they placed on WikiProject Venezuela's talk page. Most of these tags were placed by NoonIcarus shortly after edits I performed.[18][19][20][21] This not only shows possible attempts at canvassing (NoonIcarus could have always listed POV tags in a sandbox or user page so they "can remember") but also that NoonIcarus is attempting to maintain a particular POV.--WMrapids (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I'll try to come back later with more time, but SandyGeorgia, who I linked in the last report and was also accused of COI and hounding, offers a good overview: I interpret your posts here as an attempt to intimidate me with "ownership" (with no valid diffs yet), and where you are intimating COI, as you are doing with NoonIcarus with "advocacy", based on your apparent misunderstanding of WP:COI. (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics).

WMrapids wishes to include a section about Venezuela at the United States involvement in regime change article, but another editor challenged this two months ago ([22]), ReyHahn. Last week they started a discussion about scope, asking about threshold and definitions but never about Venezuela, and yet another editor, BobFromBrockley, said that the section should not be included until the discussion is sorted out ([23]). WMrapids clearly doesn't have consensus for the inclusion and omitting this information is deceptive.

I should also warn about not throwing stones, since just this week I also warned the user against blanking ([24]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, I will respectively only reply to you once in order to avoid bludgeoning and another wall of text.

• I shared concerns with both you and SandyGeorgia about your editing. Other than being frank, it was in no means an act of intimidation as we needed to clear the air at the time following months of disputed edits.
• "another editor challenged this two months ago" Yes. The editor used the same argument ("explain how verbal support is regime change") that you have also been trying to make since 2019 ("neither of them go into depths about any actions (which and how), only intent"). Clarifying this concern about "verbal support" occurred in this discussion where it was determined that reliable sources saying that the US was involved in soft power or hard power tactics to enact regime change was sufficient for inclusion. This is why I placed the information back and later cited the snowball clause since I genuinely believed the dispute was over. You, ReyHahn and Bobfrombrockley were the few who opposed the inclusion of Venezuela and the consensus of the scope for inclusion (such opposition has been persistent since 2019) while 6–8 other users support the inclusion criteria that would allow the placement of the Venezuela section. So accusing me of being "deceptive" is casting aspersions and is more evidence that you are taking this personally.
• If we want to talk about omitting information, why did you not provide my rationale on why this information was removed (undue and possible conflict of interest) and instead provided your diff accusing me of blanking? Also, why did you omit that a separate user supported my rationale for removing such information?[25][26]

It's clear that you have taken your interactions with me as being personal, which is evidenced by you nominating an article I created for deletion without any rationale, WikiHounding my contributions, placing questionable tags on my edits and now calling me "deceptive". Honestly, you simply stopping this behavior would be enough for me, but given your pattern of ignoring warnings, we are beyond that. WMrapids (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't explain why you haven't had issues using the same sources in the past (1, 2), other instances of blanking in the article (3) and that the discussions that you refer to actually recommended trimming and not expansion (see this response here). That being said:

Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids

I was really hoping that less interaction with WMrapids would mean less conflict, but it clearly hasn't been the case, so I will be detailing their own disruptive behavior while I have the chance.

There's hardly been any pushing, at least not from my part. While they started editing in 2014 and originally focused mostly in Peruvian topics, last year WMrapids quickly shifted to edit about Venezuelan ones after a move discussion that I started was closed with an outcome they opposed. The move was closed (24 May 2023), and in two hours they start two move requests on articles I have been involved with with the same rationale (1 and 2). I cite an essay I have contributed to in said discussions, and then they proceed to label its listed sources as biased.

"This opposition deputy led an auto theft gang", "this journalist served as a foreign agent", "this political party is a terrorist organization", "these protesters usually strip naked to ask for attention"... with such controversial edits it shouldn't be a surprise that the changes are contested, and cleanup tags have been the only way to prevent edit wars. Case in point, WMrapids violated the 3RR a few days ago at the Guarimba article (4 5 6 7), until I warned them about it. These issues have been broughts up at ANI and the NPOV noticeboard, but remained unanswered: ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking), WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda, WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition and WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba. If I challenge the edits, then it seems that it is "POV-pushing", but if I don't and raise the objection with a tag, then it is "driveby tagging". Either way, any criticism apparently is disruptive editing and the only satisfactory response is not to interfere at all. In other words, the message seems to be: "Do not disagree with me".

This pointy and contrarian attitude has been ongoing for eight months now, as I will point out later, and it is unbearable. While in the previous thread the editor vaguely accused me of driving away editors, I have pointed out to editors saying that they have unwatched articles because of WMrapids' editing (8), becoming so stressful that it even gives head and stomach aches (9) (and I can say that it has been definitely been very stressful for me too). The bludgeoning against editors that have disagreed with them is common (10 11 12 13 14 15), and being the only editor that hasn't abandoned editing because of this is only natural that this ANI is filed against me.

There are many issues at hand, but I will focus to detail two LTA patterns: filibustering and hounding. During this time, WMrapids has had the habit to bring back or relitigate settled or old article discussions, coincidentally also nearly all of those where I have participated and some with similar positions to those of editor ZiaLater (talk · contribs · logs). Interaction between both users shows a clear overlap in topics about Peru, Venezuela, and Grand Rapids, Michigan (bear these articles in mind when I detail better the hounding examples below). While sockpuppetering by itself is not forbidden, using multiple accounts to game the consensus certainly is. While it has been too long to demonstrate a connection with a checkuser, a duck test should certainly give a clue:

• 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt Move to "2019 Venezuelan coup attempt" proposed on 1 May 2019 (supported by ZiaLater), no consensus → Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by WMrapids on 24 May 2023, not moved.
• Operation Gideon (2020): Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by ZiaLater on 8 May 2020, no consensus → Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by WMrapids on 24 May 2023, no consensus (move to "Bay of Piglets Invasion" proposed later on 19 July, procedurally closed).
• Rupununi uprising: Drastic expansion about "Venezuela's involvement" by ZiaLater on 18 January 2020 ([27]) → WMrapids continued reinstating this point of view starting on 25 November 2023 ([28])

Regardless of the original user, those are not the only examples:

WMrapids has also accusing me of hounding in articles where I have already edited, that are on my watchlist, and sometimes even created, failing to see that this says more about them than it does about me. SandyGeorgia also sums it up very good ("#Followup: intimidation, COI, and BLP concerns"): You claim hounding above, based on me editing articles after you that I've edited for almost two decades, and in one case, you even claimed that based on an article I created. And yet, you fail to mention the times you have clearly hounded my edits, and gone right after me to articles I have always edited and you have never edited. Examples include the following (please note how all of these cases happen after 24 May 2023, when the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article move discussion was closed):

If I'm allowed to quote SandyGeorgia one last time, because she has put all this dispute more eloquently than I can:

I want to make sure it is very clear that if these behaviors continue, you should and can expect a very long list of similar incriminating diffs to show shortly at ANI. By "these behaviors" I mean, BLP breaches, continued harassment, continued misrepresentation of diffs, continued hounding of me to articles I edit, and continued persecution of NoonIcarus along with your busted AGF-ometer which leads to the aforementioned onslaught of aspersions that made me unwatch a page you followed me to. I don't mind cleaning up your POV edits, as that's part of the process, and it's clear you don't yet recognize how deep your POV and your failure to consult best sources are. Please make no mistake that my politeness or patience with you do not mean I am willing to let these serious behaviors go on indefinitely. Yes, a fresh start would be good and I am willing to continue being patient, but my patience is not unlimited. (9 November 2023)
— User:SandyGeorgia

I'm truly sorry for the long text, but it was necessary to condense the disruptive behavior. If there's any troublesome behavior that has not changed, it is clearly WMrapids', and at this point probably only administrative intervention will solve this. At the very least, an admonishment should be considered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Neither editor is doing themselves any favours with wall of text presentations of content disputes.

BUT: I am also concerned about Noonicarus' edits on Venezuelan and Latin American articles. In particular Noonicarus is terrible at identifying/evaluating sources, and engages in tag-bombing as a first resort. In a recent edit they removed or tagged text cited to peer-reviewed scholarly articles 1, largely because they did not like the information that was sourced to them. Upon doing this they stated: Last but not least, as with other disputed edits, the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected. If we take this at face value, this is a bizarre statement for en experienced editor.

Similarly, when I suggested that claims from a report commissioned by the OAS, an organisation which has a political position and a recent history of making false statements on politics, should only be included if attributed, their response was: Please see the comments above about addressing the substance instead of the character. In other words, are there facts stated that should be questioned? Why? ... You might also want to take a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Noonicarus is a productive editor but their commitment to ensuring their political point of view predominates in Venezuela articles risks them entering an ANI death spiral. What is to be done?

Boynamedsue(talk) 20:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again

I haven't edited in this topic area. My involvement was that I began mediating a dispute at DRN over La Salida, a Venezuelan opposition organization, on 18 December 2023. As User:WMrapids noted above, User:Ultranuevo filed a recent previous WP:ANI report here on 5 January. WMrapids then provided a wall of text and proposed a WP:TBAN against User:NoonIcarus with respect to all political articles for at least one year. I failed the DRN because it was pending in another forum. The previous WP:ANI was then archived without action.

But here were are again. I think that some sanction is needed, or we will continue hearing these conduct disputes between these editors every few weeks. Has anyone reviewed their edits carefully to verify which of them is enough at fault to warrant a topic-ban? Or do we topic-ban them both from articles on Venezuela? Or do we conclude that these are two editors who do not like each other and impose a two-way interaction ban on them? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Interaction ban

I propose a six-month two-way interaction ban between User:WMrapids and User:NoonIcarus, with only the usual exceptions.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• I would support an interaction ban but would also recommend a Venezuelan politics ban for Noonicarus. There has been bad behaviour on his side here.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Boynamedsue became involved after I posted in the reliable sources noticeboard a week ago asking about the reliability of the Organization of American States (WP:RS/N#(OAS) Panel of Independent International Experts). The discussion afterwards can be found at Talk:Guarimba#Pejorative term. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is over behaviour not content, and my use of the first person above already makes the fact we have had past contact clear. Since you mention it, you took this to RSN, then when you didn't like the answer you were given you chose to ignore it. Again this shows your problematic behaviour with regards to Venezuelan politics. I don't think this is deliberate, but unfortunately your strong pro-opposition beliefs are pushing you into WP:COMPETENCE territory here if you can't even accept mild suggestions like "attribute this" or accept scholarly articles are valid when you don't like what they say. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Boynamedsue - I see that User:NoonIcarus went to RSN on 22 January and posted an RFC, but the RFC will run until 21 February, and has received very little feedback so far. Is your issue that NoonIcarus asked for comments and then went ahead as if the comments that haven't come in yet agreed with them? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not entirely au fait with the rules of RfC's. I was reading the RSN post as a general request for others input rather than a vote intended to validate their viewpoint. As I read it there is consensus on the talkpage for text they want with attribution, but they seem intent on dragging on discussion on in two forums and making personal attacks as they do it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You should provide diffs if you accuse me of personal attacks, Boynamedsue. I posted an RFC based on this constested edit that I made: [36]. I have not reinstated said content afterwards, and I'm not opposed to it being attributed. -- NoonIcarus (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have already provided a diff of the personal attack, and that edit is absolutely not the subject of the RfC as there is no link or reference to it on the RfC. An RfC for that edit would be well beyond the scope of RSN. The recent edits on the talkpage only discuss whether the claim that Gaurimba is a pejorative term can be sourced, not the particulars of the above edit which would involve questions of detail, levels of attribution and relevance per WP:DUE.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: Is it possible as an involved user in the dispute to support this? While I feel that reviewing the edits is really important, I think this measure would definitely help with the situation (and is a measure that I would voluntarily agree to). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban for WMrapids. Patterns such as edit warring and blanking have continued even after repeated warnings ([37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]) and reports at this ANI ("WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS" (August 2023), "WMrapids (blanking)" (November 2023)), and the diffs I provided above show that the editor has already had the same issues with several other editors in the past (1 2 3 3 4 5). The repeated changes without consensus, even weeks or months after first disputed and as recently as today ([46]), demonstrate either an unwillingness or inability to work collaboratively in the project, and a topic ban would be a step towards a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, I suggested a one-year topic ban on all political articles in the previous ANI, though a more targeted topic ban on Venezuelan politics is necessary as suggested by Boynamedsue, especially since it is clear that NoonIcarus will remain disruptive editing such a topic. As for the interaction ban, it may be helpful to assist with maintaining information on the topic, but this action is futile if a topic ban is not implemented due to NoonIcarus' lengthy history of gaming the system. For example, a user may place information in an article, NoonIcarus inappropriately removes such information (as done before multiple times with WP:BADPOV editing) and I would not be able to comment on the disputed information or even report potential misbehavior to other users, creating a false consensus. With this gaming behavior, there is also a high probability of retroactive editing disputes (adding/removing information previously placed/removed by either of us), which would only prolong disruptions on such contentious Venezuelan topics. Because of NoonIcarus' activist editing history, evidenced by their years of gaming the system and performing BADPOV edits, my support of an interaction ban (if even possible) would be conditional on the implementation of a topic ban on Venezuelan politics as this is the primary concern here.--WMrapids (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• 85.107.101.23/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Turkey has been changing the height parameter in dozens of biographies without citing a source. Some of the subjects are alive, so WP:BLP makes the problem worse. The disruption began in October 2023, as far as I can tell.[47] Can we give this IP range a timeout? Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked range for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I found four more ranges of Turkish IPs doing the same thing over the same time period: Special:Contributions/5.24.128.0/21,[48] Special:Contributions/46.154.48.0/20,[49] Special:Contributions/88.230.32.0/20[50] and Special:Contributions/46.154.176.0/20.[51] Can we block these, too? Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And two more: Special:Contributions/88.241.176.0/20.[52] and Special:Contributions/31.142.64.0/19.[53] This person gets around. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that. I blocked all those for 3 months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Was redirected here by an experienced editor. Editor Potatín5 has been consistently reverting my research based claims, often deleting them completely. Not working to compromise and consensus, just deleting. What steps can be taken?

A few examples:

Josiah Omrides Ten Commandments IncandescentBliss (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also Temple menorah

I am requesting that editor is restricted or banned from WikiProject Bible pages. Their reversions are making it frustrating as a new contributor with extensive knowledge or related topics and systematically trying to erase scholarly consensus on important topics. IncandescentBliss (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In each of these cases they seem to have made a single edit which they have explained with an apparently-reasonable edit summary. I'm not seeing a conduct issue here. Instead of coming straight to ANI to get an editor sanctioned for disagreeing with you, you should discuss content questions on the article talk page in the first instance Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There are 2 accounts, named Gevaarlik and Joker1Joker which appear to be single purpose accounts being used to denigrate an organization. Both accounts have been opened within the month of January with the latter being just over a week ago. In total they have made over 120 edits to pages exclusively to do with the Sekunjalo group, with just 1 exception. All the information they have written has been created in a negative bias towards the group.

They pages they have been editing include:
Sekunjalo Investments
Iqbal Survé
African News Agency
The Sunday Independent
Independent Online

They have removed information that is neutral or positive about each of the above pages and included negative information and their writing is structured with negative connotations.

Here are some examples:
Diff Here, user Gevaarlik removed a statement about about the company suing the President and State. This is a factual piece with reliable sources such as a press statement from the company website, an article written by Tech Central and an article by southafricanlawer.co.za

Diff Removed this edit citing sources as unreliable yet they are from World Economic Forum and a Muslim newspaper hajjreporters.com

Diff Undid this edit which correctly cites a source directly from the Kathrada Foundation and manipulated it to appear negative

Diff Included POV terms such as "Scandal Ridden" (fixed by another editor)

Diff Again, strongly worded POV opinions (fixed by another editor)

All in all you can see their writing has an extreme negative bias and is written in POV fashion rather than being factual. Again, the 120+ edits they've made within the last 3-4 weeks all focus on pages linked to The Sekunjalo Investments Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayFacts (talk • contribs) 09:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Erm ... you do realize that you are a single purpose account, with far fewer edits than they have, and exclusively editing on the Iqbal Survé and the Sekunjalo Investments articles, yes? Ravenswing 10:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Not only that, but from the edits I've looked at, the OP appears to adding peacockery to the article [54], whilst removing perfectly well sourced edits that just happen to contain negative material [55]. They are right in that the other editor shouldn't be using POV terms such as "scandal-ridden", but on the other hand it is not as if the multiple reliable sources cited aren't actually using the word "scandal" about the various issues, so it's only a semantic issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 14:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of his edits have been reverted or deleted. Created speedily deleted pages twice, with BEN (tv series) (which he later hijacked a redirect to create) and Ochomoto. Has now crated an autobiography. Mach61 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

He had already attempted to create that autobiography yesterday and it got A7'd. I had also already given him a final warning about an hour ago (before that page got recreated) to stop creating this kind of stuff. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE. If not NOTHERE, then CIR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This IP user 5.2.202.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is quite insistent in adding content without references (or with references not useful to verify the information provided) in several articles. They have made the same kind of edits through the IP range 109.101.69.224/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They have already been warned on many occasions and doesn't seem to have any intention to change their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am one of the people on the first IP address, and I am always adding correct details and facts, because I actually care about helping with shows I love, and I do not know how to use references, because it is too complicated and English is not my first language. There is still information, that has been available for months, such as Saori and Fumi's actors in JJK characters Rie Suegara and Aoi Azusa, but you block facts and instead of being helpful, are being obtuse. You are an expert, right? So please, just help and add the citations, or add the details. I want to help complete the details and was being helpful, to the best of my knowledge. 5.2.202.159 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations are your responsibility when adding content, not that of other editors. If you don't know how to properly cite the material you are adding, you should not add it. See WP:V. --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

5.2.202.159, I suggest you put your proposed article edits along with the required references on the articles’ talk pages until you figure out citations. Thank you for your interest and help with these topics. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, I added it to the talk page, but I did not know how to add the source, that being the cast list from the episodes, since I read Japanese. So I just mentioned the actors names 5.2.202.159 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've told you several times already about WP:NOTTRUTH, but it seems that you either still don't get or plainly don't care. It's not a matter of completing information just for the sake of completing it. Adding content without a respective reliable source available to verify said content is not helpful at all. If you want to add voice actors without any kind of reference, there are a million other sites where you can edit, but not here. Xexerss (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

188.125.221.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP previously blocked ([57]) for vandalism (e.g. see edit history at Partal Palace). Right after the block, they responded with these. Over a month later, with the block expired, they are back to making mass deletions of sourced content with edit summaries that don't come close to explaining or justifying the deletions, e.g.: [58], [59], [60]. They already received a warning ([61]) and continued to do the same after it ([ [62]]). Whoever is using the IP is WP:NOTHERE. R Prazeres (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of by EvergreenFir who has reblocked that IP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There's something not right with Smadur661's editing. I can't tell whether it's serious lack of competence, or wilful disruption, but either way it's not helping. There's also a heavy promotional angle to this, as they only edit about music- and publication-related topics which all seem to be connected and in which they almost certainly have some sort of COI (which has been queried, but not responded to). Thus far I've not seen a single useful edit from them, so I'd say they're a net negative to the project, and almost certainly !HERE. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Having reverted some of their edits[63], and nominated for deletion their creation (Soccer News \ Room), I have to agree that this editor seems to have a severe WP:CIR issue. See e.g. Draft:Black Ambition, an article about a record label, but " it earned bachelor's degree from the University of Tshwane.", and then the "Awards & Honors" section is just extreme nonsense. Fram (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My favourite is Draft:My Classical (Stories). I've gone through it many times now, and still haven't a clue what it's meant to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Why, a compilation of articles like Mary Hill, Austin, of course! Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked, and all pages deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hoping someone will be willing to take a look at Horror film and the talk page there, where Andrzejbanas is exhibiting disruptive behavior issues include ownership, sealioning, refusing to accept consensus is against them, and refusing to revert their edits made against that consensus once it was pointed out to them. When an issue is addressed, they move to a new one, creating walls of text that keep accusing other editors of not being willing to continue discussing and explaining.

Extended content

It started with this reversion, where they wrote in the edit summary there are certainly horror films set during Christmas, but without some page citation from that book, all the other articles just connect the dots that "here are a list of alternative Christmas films" or "here are some horror films set around Christmas time" without really isolating it as a genre. Here, after I'd found those page#s, they reverted again, this time saying I'd added the info back without addressing concerns, which wasn't true. Here argued that none of the sources that none of them describe it as a genre, which wasn't true, and in fact in the content they'd removed included a note I'd added quoting the book source calling it a genre three different times. Here that the genre wasn't well-defined. I pointed out that it doesn't have to be well-defined in order to exist, and that an entire book of essays about the genre had been published by an established publisher. Here that they didn't find the book's arguments convincing. Here argued "seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher." I pointed out that Teen horror doesn't even exist except as a redirect. Here told me that if I didn't even know what a genre cycle was, I shouldn't be trying to write about film. Here said calling it a genre was FRINGE. Here that nothing in the sources provided any value to the reader. I pointed out that my proposed addition told the reader The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre. Here that they never heard the term in common use. Here that an entire book of essays about the genre published by an established publisher wasn't sufficient to show the genre existed, saying, I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic. Here that other than the book, there were only listicles. I pointed out that NPR and Hollywood Reporter both were calling it a genre or subgenre and giving it lengthy treatment. Here that they'd found errors in books by that publisher and implied NPR and HR were well-disguised listicle content. Which is not true, both describe the genre and its appeal at length. The fact they mention multiple highly-regarded examples does not make those articles listicles. Here circled back to that there was nothing in the three sources that provided valuable information. Twice. At this point, two other editors, GoneIn60 and Robert McClenon came in and agreed it was a legitimate genre. To which they responded, I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it. Which seems pretty WP:OWNy -- if they can't write it, it doesn't go in?

GI60 then proposed entirely new language, which I supported, and Andrjez started the whole rigamarole over with that proposal. GI60 at that point agreed that he and I had done our due diligence and his third opinion provided consensus, and we added the language, and Andrjez reverted again saying there was no consensus. Then he said he hadn't seen the discussion between me and GI60, but still didn't revert himself after being asked multiple times on my talk, his talk, and the article talk. And he's still arguing that neither of us has explained what the issue is and that I'm dodging his questions. The whole thing could be another dozen diffs. Sealioning in particular is hard to prove without multiple. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

1. . Basically on trying to pull information from google searches, I had very click-baity aritcles. I grew frustrated trying to pull into a form which I think fits a film genre and went WP:BOLD.
2. . I shouldn't have done this and should have brought it to discussion.
3. . I'm very strict with genre. The descriptions within seem broad and not part of any cycle. Kim Newman argues that genre can only exist when films are trying to imitate each other. As I've added to this and various film genre articles, genre is very subjective. For example, on the Thriller film article, most serious journalism agrees that despite the term being in common use, there is no universally agreed upon term to it. This is the same in the current horror article, specifically "Mark Jancovich in an essay declared that "there is no simple 'collective belief' as to what constitutes the horror genre" between both fans and critics of the genre" The same can be applied to the sub-genre, so I warn against such arguments.
4. . The genre, isn't well defined. Yes there is a book, and in the opening pages of the book the author even states "It's difficult to define [the Christmas horror]". So I'm not sure what the issue is here.
5. . I didn't find them convincing, because they are very broad. I'll elaborate on that.
6. . I'll admit to that, as it didn't appear you have read this article before contributing to it. Cycle is mentioned early in the prose.
7. . That was wrong of me, I was frustrated and apologize. And I believe I did apologize in the topic at hand.
8. . The genre is fringe. Kim Newman states this enough on his write up on the topic in Nightmare Movies.
9. . Here's where you are flat out wrong. It would be anachronistic to place a genre like this. Genre's don't emerge, they arrive via imitation and cycles.
10. . It isn't common use. Kim Newman refers to it Nightmare Movies as a very minor genre.
11. . One book, by one author. This is hardly the slasher film which has countless essays, articles, and books about it. I can easily provide further research into teen horror which has Scholary journals written about it, but pointing out "i've never heard of it" felt like knee-jerk reactions, especially to someone who only showed that they didn't seem to have read the article when adding their content.
12. . You were right on the NPR and Hollywood Reporter, and I said you were in the discussion.
13. . There are errors in the articles, and I've pointed them out. I never suggested the publications were unreliable, but further research (which was requested, then done, then ignored by the requesting parties). For example, information of it being taken suggest there is a connection between the films and early Christmas ghost stories, but the article has no proof out of this. The articles also list Silent Night, Bloody Night as the first, or an early film in the genre, but as the article I shared in Rue Morgue magazine on the topic, the link between Christmas and that film begins and ends with the title.
14. . I feel that from what I've said above, the articles are not the strongest discussion points on the topic, from writer who clearly have not seen some of these films they are discussing and question, and work on assumed beliefs based on film titles.
15. . And one of those editors, encouraged me to keep on going despite you only commenting that I'm trying to own the page and not addressing me when I asked you time and time again to comment on my content, not perceived editing patterns or agenda.

I'm not reverting the edit, because I feel like the user is trying to force me to agree with something, without addressing my requests. They are welcome to revert it on their own, but they have not assumed good faith with any of my edits. Yes I believe I was wrong some of the times and my actions were too bold. But when I've done when they asked (i.e: find more sources, try to re-write it), they've made their decision that I've gone too far.

I'd like to address this user made the content really frustrating to browse. Two threads were opened and the editor hopped between them back and forth. I missed the consensus (between two editors). In the meantime, I reached out to WP:HORROR and WP:FILM to ask for suggestions on my edits to Horror film, action film, thriller film, and mystery film talk pages, and this debate in question. Please do not assume, I'm trying to own a page when I'm actively reaching out. I appreciate that you also asked for comments as well, but I don't blame anyone for not reading through our bickering. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your entire response is returning to arguing content. This is about behavior. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

...? I also apologized? Showcased where I reached out to others for further comments (which seems to be against your accusations of me trying to own an article when I want more voices on it!) and pointed out where I think you are ignoring content for, unknown reasons. Yes, I've brought up the content here, because that what was what the question was. How else should I explain myself? I want to assume good faith, but you give me one sentence summaries. You have edited your own posts as well to make it look like you haven't been antagonizing me. The very fact you address a perceived notion instead of content, and you make antagonizing posts against me in both edit summaries and edited responses: here and here. You have been ignoring WP:FOC, and have made the priority of your arguments on the page about me, when I've frequently asked to please comment on the content, you return it with how i'm trying to own a page. Not sure what else, but I'm finding it very difficult to engage about content with you that you clearly feel strongly about as you never discuss it and avoid anything that suggests I'm actively looking for a grander solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

On my own talk page, I've also stated that you have made me feel like reverting my own edit would feel like you are trying to trap me into suggesting consensus with your edit. You did not respond to that. What should be my, or anyone's, take away from that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I would assume you and anyone else should take away that I've given up on trying to keep plugging away when someone is just giving back WP:IDHT and WP:SEALION. Consensus is against you, you've refused to revert yourself, and instead are demanding that I continue a 82Kbyte discussion in which three different editors have told you consensus is against you. Valereee (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to revert it. I've stated you are trying to force me into consensus or do something. If you could simply say "i'm not trying to do that", then I'd feel comfortable. You haven't made me feel safe in doing it. Right after the editor who told me keep going with what i'm doing here. I'm not why you are quoting essays and I don't hear you, because I've done what you've requested. You can say you've addressed me, and you are happy to point out Diffs. I'm trying to address you continuously (again on your own talk page, and in the article). I am hearing you, and have made issues with the content. When you aren't engaging with me when I ask basic questions. I'm not sure what you want me to do other than call you on the same. But as you said, this is about me. I agree with you on some points, and on others, I think you are ignoring valid points on the base assumption that I'm trying to own an article. I've addressed where I think how I'm not doing that. (I.e: engaging with Gonein60, asking for outside discussion from wikiprojects, and continuously asking you to please focus on content, not perceived backlines.) I'm more concerned with you not addressing and trying to get me into reverting an edit based on...I barely know. Accident? This again, feels like I'm getting trapped for the reasons stated above. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what else there is to say, but I think we probably re-open this with focus on the prose and not perceived biases. I feel like that shows that I'm not trying to own an article, i'm trying to find the happy medium. As the current edit, has material which has some content which I've found is wrong. (see comment again on Rue Morgue quote and Kim Newman and Yuletide quotes on it being a hard to define and smaller genre). Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you are worried reverting yourself will somehow suggest you're agreeing with consensus, I'm happy to make that reversion. Headed out now, but I'll check back in. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to be bold, but yes, I've said that about three times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made that edit. As long as @Andrzejbanas does not revert it to some preferred version of their own, I'm satisfied. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No interest in reverting at the moment, but I've opened up new discussion, as the current edit has focus and sources that disagree with each other. I look forward you to responding. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas, so we here at ANI should take this to mean that if I and other editors do not continue to generate tens of thousands of bytes of discussion daily, you are planning to revert again? Valereee (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No? Every time I suggest anything in that talk page, you assume like this. I'm sorry, but you are not assuming good faith at all. If you can't assume good faith, I suggest you take break from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not start out editing in this topic area, but was responding to what I thought might have been a request for a Third Opinion, and offered the opinion that Christmas horror is a distinct subgenre. Whether it is a fringe subgenre is not important. I will agree to the language proposed by User:Valereee or by User:GoneIn60. I thought that User: Andrzejbanas was sealioning, but I didn't feel like writing that up, and hoped that the issue would either be resolved by other editors or go away, or possibly be written up by other editors. I see that it has been written up by User:Valereee. My opinion, which is only worth what you paid me for it, is that Andrzejbanas is still sealioning. I would suggest that this dispute can be resolved in at least one of two ways. Andrzejbanas can recognize that they are in a minority, and allow the other editors to agree on language, or the community can impose a topic-ban from the area of horror films for at least sixty days (during which the other editors can agree on language). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm totally aware i'm in the minority, if like, two editors against one is a wide margin. I have to disagree @Robert McClenon that I wanted editors to go away. I've shown that I've reached out to communities and other regular WP:FILM commentators for further opinions (here and here. I was definitely rude early on. I believe I've apologized on it. I feel like since then, if I suggest anything to it, which, the current agreed upon suggestions had content that is flat out false. In fact, when I pointed it out before, Gonein60 agreed and even said just yesterday "It may be too early to call for consensus" here. When I asked Valereee to please focus on the content changes, (per WP:FOC), it led to a write-up that I'm trying to control the article. It would be a real determent to article to include it in it's current "agreed" upon form where I've stated there is flagrant misinterpretation of sources, and as further material has been found, it should require further discussion. I understand they are frustrated with me, but I think it's time to focus on prose and citations instead of presumed beliefs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas - I didn't think that you wanted other users to go away. I was hoping that maybe the issue would go away because I didn't want to think more about it. No such luck on my part. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahh my bad. I misread there. Trust me, my current stance is to have something in the article that state what citations say. From our rough start, which is definitely my wrong doing for a good chunk, it has become difficult to contribute. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I think it would be best if you stepped away from the article for a little while. I appreciate your good faith, but you're not gaining consensus for your views, and the sheer volume of your comments on the talk page will discourage other editors from participating. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Given this, I can't help but agree that this editor should step away. Given this, it appears unlikely to happen. Valereee (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

How about yourself? Anytime I try to clear the air, make easy for other editors to read, and refresh what I believe a current issue is. You shut it down. This is against several wiki policies, you aren't assuming WP:GF. I've haven't had this much trouble with anything in any article until this in a very long time. You haven't addressed any issue I've had, I haven't reverted your edit, and still you stress I can't control myself. I'm trying to keep format. but what is up ?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is over 80Kbytes. I have not shut anything down, I've engaged far longer than 99% of people would. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So? I agree it's gone on long, but it's mostly because new content is not being addressed which has been found only yesterday. Per WP:TALK#USE we're supposed to communicate there. While you had made it obtuse by discussing the same topic in two threds WP:MULTI. Yes i've created a new sub-section, because WP:TALKSUBHEADING I'm trying to focus on task. Just saying "we've talked a lot" is not addressing that I've found new content that is being ignored. Now, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." You haven't given me constructive feedback, you've just been saying "this has gone on long enough". If you are done with the topic, that's great. You don't have to contribute. I'm not going to revert your edit, but I've tried to flow the topic to one course which is the current issue. You are welcome to join in, but please have something constructive about the content, not the user. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Robert McClenon's proposal for a 60 day topic ban from horror films and film genres, broadly construed, with a warning to Andrzejbanas that resuming this type of behavior anywhere on Wikipedia may lead to a sitewide block. Be concise. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, I respect the edit, but I suggest it be separated from horror films. I'm one of the more active users in WP:HORROR and have actively been trying to keep that community active (see it's talk page, and main page). I don't have an active train of these edits. If you feel I must step away from this topic, but I feel like just editing the christmas horror article and subsection of the Horror film article is enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, I stand by my recommendation. Let's hear from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – Just wanted to add that a note dropped at WT:FILM led me to the discussion around the same time as Robert McClenon. Following our third opinions, the discussion seemed to be progressing when Andrzejbanas accepted the reliability of sources in question and suggested a proposal was needed to weigh in on. Once a proposal was given, the immediate response was "I can't really find valid content within the sources mentioned to actually formulate this into something palpable" (diff). Why ask for editors' time commitment in writing a proposal if you were already at the determination nothing could be written? This was a sign of things to come in the debate. Despite the responses and alternate proposals that followed, a new concern or issue is always waiting right around the corner.
  It also appears another editor has now been canvassed directly to participate, but in fairness, this canvassed editor is a veteran editor of the Film project and a discussion notice was dropped earlier at WT:FILM. Not really sure what to make of any of this. I'll leave that up to those who have experience sorting these situations out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not cool, @Andrzejbanas Valereee (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  And another canvass Valereee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, if I was going to solicit additional feedback, these would be two of the first editors I'd ask. Their opinions will be unbiased. However, the fact that no one was notified of these pings is concerning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  At the time, I couldn't find information, I've said that at the time where I couldn't find information. I did not canvas to get anyone to agree with me or not, we had about three people discussing it. There is nothing wrong with what I did and my requests were strictly for comment, not to swing a position one way or another. Honestly, If they agree with you, I'll be more comfortable with me feeling "it's probably just a me thing." and I'll feel better and move on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Andrzejbanas, they could be the least biased editors on the project. The problem is that by canvassing them, you've tainted their input. Valereee (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any rule that I can't do that? I've asked them completely neutrally, as I've seen them edit things with little bias in the past and are long time contributors to WP:FILM. I've done this several times, and this is the only time I've heard it being treated like I'm rallying troops or something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  For example, I've had it done to me on Talk:Ninja Gaiden (Atari Lynx)#Merge proposal This is really normal behavior. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  And the editor doing that pinged you transparently to the discussion, explaining their reason for doing so, at a point when no one else in the discussion was even disagreeing with them. The difference is obvious. I am happy to have more eyes on the discussion, but when you are in the minority and you handpick editors to invite in to the discussion and don't even mention you're doing so, it does tend to make it look like an attempt to recruit the troops. GI60 says these are editors they trust to be unbiased, so I'll let it go. Valereee (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Me saying I couldn't find anything, is an invitation to say something like "perhaps you could!" I feel like we're really twisting words here to really make me discourage anyone from editing. Since then, I have expanded on it, and both @GoneIn60: and @Valereee: have said it's not close enough to their personal definition. And both decided to progress further. I feel really quite like we're trying to twist every word I have here, to make it look like I've denying everything, while I've previously said that GoneIn60's was "the best writing" i've seen so far. GoneIn60 has also encouraged me to keep going. I feel like i'm being torn both ways here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  GI60 didn't encourage you to keep going. They made one final attempt to have a reasonable discussion, and then they too threw up their hands and we agreed we'd done everything we could. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• The issues seem to have been resolved for now. I have no objection to this being closed or archiving with no action. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Discussion of the content issue in question is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics § "univalent relations". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Both Asmahadad23 and Lenah_aldalati claim to be editing on behalf of Uskudar University [64] [65]. Both have been adding walls of text that appear to only have a single source at the end, and often that source has no bearing on the subject.

Asmahadad23, on Diagnosis of autism, added a whole paragraph about misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with percentages and reasons and it was referenced by an article about misdiagnosis of hernias in children.[66] Nothing at all to do with ASD. Another paragraph on the same subject was referenced to a paper on "Misdiagnosis and mistreatment of uterine myxoid leiomyosarcoma" which, again, has no bearing on ASD.

Lenah aldalati, on Nervous system disease, removed sourced material and replaced it with four paragraphs that had a single reference at the end to an article entitled "Wound infections: an overview" that has nothing to do with nervous system diseases.[67]

I don't know if this is an actual school project or how many editors may be involved but the edits aren't actually helping the articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:Education noticeboard#Student assignment at Uskudar University editing medical articles. That may be sufficient management for now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose content disputes are handled on article talk page, unless it’s suspected that the students are acting in bad faith? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's less about the students being in bad faith, and more that they may be told to edit Wikipedia with no guidance, and their grade depends on it, so adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities. The entire education program can wind up here on ANI when it becomes clear there's no real mentorship going on, and whatever program it is needs reined in.

Otherwise, normal content disputes should be handled on the article talk, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

“So adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities” I can’t agree with this assumption. If they don’t adhere to the rules, their edits will get reverted and they may even be blocked, how can they get good grades? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In no way is it Wikipedia's responsibility to determine what grades the students get. And we cannot let our content suffer out of concern for that. It's the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the students understand what the rules here are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the sentence you wrote, but would like to modify it. If we're talking about responsibility,

It's the ___'s responsibility to make sure that the old Wikipedia users understand what the rules (WP:CIVIL, WikiBullying, etc.) here are.

It's ___'s (and old users) responsibility to make sure that the new Wikipedia users understand what the rules here are. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the sentences you wrote, not because I disagree with the need for mutual responsibility and respect, but because you seem to be naive about how these things really play out here. But how about we say that it's your responsibility to clean up after the student edits here? I suspect that once you go through that, you'll change your tune. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentences I wrote were based on the sentence you wrote ... I don’t know whether I should (strongly) like or dislike your description of me as “seem to be naive”. Perhaps I’d better view it as a compliment? After all it’s really not easy to stay naive after one has seen or got involved in all those not-so-pleasant discussions and users’ interactions here at Wikipedia (e.g., [68] [69]). I don’t think it’s anyone’s “responsibilities” to do any clean up (and whether “clean up” is needed can also be very subjective, and sometimes it’s actually content disputes between editors who disagree). I’m not sure if I should change *my tune* ([70]). IMO the discussions have gone somewhat too long and scattered, and are difficult to follow. Maybe it’s time for me to move on.. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC); 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And I don’t think I see any student violating the rules *deliberately*. All I see is, *no one* bothers to tell them the rules.

They might have completed the “ Wikipedia training modules”, I don’t know much and can’t comment on that. Anyway, I believe medical editors can do a better job to guide our new comers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC); 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the big problems with student editing in general. They're often given requirements by the instructor that do not match those of Wikipedia. (In this case the instructor has apparently told them that anything and everything they find on PubMed is usable, which is clearly wrong). When they get told otherwise they stick with the person who is grading them. And no one should blame them personally for this - they are being put into an impossible situation, where their grade depends not only on their own work and their instructor's beliefs, but on the actions of third parties (that is, every other Wikipedia editor). MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah... I don’t think the instructor is suggesting that *everything* in Pubmed is usable. If the instructor really *do* think so, I think it’s time for us to review our wording in WP:MEDRS to see why it gives users such an impression. Again, all these don’t belong to ANI IMO. I don’t see there are any conflicts between getting good grades and making great contributions to Wikipedia.

Agreed that no one should be blamed personally. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That said, I believe our usual practices to safeguard the accuracy of our content are still essential. There are absolutely times that reverts are needed. Just that I think students shouldn’t be labelled as more problematic than other new users. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a side-effect of having seen this happen repeatedly with poorly run education projects (aka the "Ah, shit, here we go again" phenomenon). It happens often enough that people immediately bristle when a cluster of students start editing against policy, because they know it's going to be a mess to fix & the educator likely won't have their backs.

It's well and good to not WP:BITE the newbies. It's incredibly frustrating when this keeps happening because of a project that has no controls & no recourse for correcting the inherent problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily “poorly run education projects”, it’s probably about “how good Wikipedia is run” (by us?).

• How do we welcome new medical editors

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's definitely poorly run education projects. If they were well run, it would nip a lot of this in the bud before it became a problem, or at least the educators would be the ones cleaning up the messes. Instead, it's left to us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see much evidence in the problem or “messes” you mentioned. Perhaps you mean these problems of Wikipedia? E.g.,

• [71] [72]
• [73]

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

After looking a bit, it looks like Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts is a pretty good help sheet (notably discussing WP:MEDRS) that could deserve to be linked somewhere. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby Thanks! That page looks great. I hope we have more constructive and forward-looking comments like yours (perhaps in a different venue other than ANI though ...) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The instructor is Flower of truth. I will also notify her, on her talk page, of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto, if you're talking about the second source cited in that diff, which talks about "functional neurological disorders" instead of saying "autism", then you might be interested in PMID 35511383, "Clinical overlap between functional neurological disorders and autism spectrum disorders: a preliminary study".

I agree that some of these are not relevant sources, but we also know that anyone can accidentally paste the wrong thing in the wrong place. I hope that someone added the {{failed verification}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The second source in that diff is "Misdiagnosis of scrotal and retroperitoneal lymphangioma in children" and I don't see where it mentions "functional neurological disorders" anywhere in the text.

If you mean the first source added, "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", that reference is about misdiagnosing autoimmune encephalitis not misdiagnosing ASD as the text Asmahadad23 added would lead one to believe. The only mention of "functional neurological disorders" in that source lists it as a correct diagnosis instead of the incorrect diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis, so again it is not about "The misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in neurodevelopmentally typical children" as Asmahadad23 claimed in their edit. They are using references that don't say what they claim they say. That isn't a mere failed verification it is borderline vandalism. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", which says that AEM in adults is sometimes diagnosed when FND (which can include autism) should have been.

Wikipedia:Vandalism is intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. Trying to make things better but screwing up completely is not vandalism, and neither is pasting the wrong source into the wrong place.

Misdiagnosis is a significant problem in ASD, and while these sources don't verify the statements made, the fix that's needed is primarily pasting the right sources in, rather than removing the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

FND isn't autism, it's medically unexplained neurological symptoms. Secretlondon (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The paper I linked suggests that the division may not be quite as clean as that, and the context in which the FND paper was cited was about misdiagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Shutting it down?

As others have observed, this keeps happening. Is there a way the English Wikipedia could suspend support for these student assignments (at least in the medical area), as they seem to be a net negative for the Project as currently set up? Bon courage (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia doesn't "support" these student assignments, so we can stop what we're already not doing.

We could incentivize students to hide the fact that they're engaged in classroom-based assignments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s a “net negative” to the project. We are talking about around 27 postgraduates here. I didn’t review their edits one by one. I see none of the more positive contributions are being mentioned in all 3 discussions.

People tend to focus on problems. Further, whether an edit is a “positive contribution” can be quite subjective, for example formatting or prose problems maybe viewed by some as very negative, while others may think they’re just minor issues that can be fixed.

As for “this keeps happening”, as I’ve said in the other discussion, I believe Wikipedia has its responsibilities as well. Very often users are not well-informed, but they are *supposed* to know what they are *not* told. And it seems to me that many of us are accustomed to using warnings (and reverts) as the very first and only means to “communicate” with our new users.

IMO if new users are more well-informed at the very beginning, much less problems and cleanup will be needed. (E.g. if someone never knows a rule but we keep saying that she/he is violating the rule, of course there will be much conflicts). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

See also:

• Education noticeboard
• WikiProject Medicine talk page

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld, I have worked in the administrative part of the education sector for much of my life. To me, this seems as though it would fall under the same general guidelines as any class excursion - the instructor must understand the rules and regulations of the place they're going, and must inform the students before arrival. For example, say the class had gone to sit in a courtroom for a day - the instructor would have told them what they should and should not wear, how to behave, what they were allowed to bring and what was prohibited, and so on. If members of the class kept misbehaving, the whole class may well be removed from the courtroom.

It's true that Wikipedia has many rules and restrictions, but the students should at least be prepared with information about reliable sources, how to cite sources, and how to manage disagreement (even if that was 'simply step back from the discussion') if they were instructed to edit articles. Links to the Teahouse and relevant project pages would, in my opinion, also be vital tools. I note that Flower of truth got a welcome template about a year ago, and that they have been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years with what seems like enjoyment and competence, so the students have an instructor who appears to know what they're doing - this might sound like an obvious thing but you would be amazed at how many instructors tell students to go do something they've never done and just thought was a brilliant idea one day.

Our ability to reach out and support instructors is limited given that often we only discover students are working on assignments once disruption begins, and by that time editors who are having to do extra work are already getting a bit annoyed. They are not seeing students who have multiple assignments and classes, students who are not *volunteering* to edit Wikipedia like everyone else. They are seeing new editors who can and should take the time to learn about the Wiki before making their first edits.

I wonder whether it would be feasible to add a line to welcome templates that basically said 'are you a student or teacher? click here for resources' - or set up a different welcome template entirely to be given to apparent students/instructors. If that seems helpful, I'd definitely be very much interested in being part of the discussion around what should be there!

And a final thought - it seems that some instructors/classes return more than once. Perhaps a less disruptive assignment option that might still cover what the instructors are looking for would be 'pick a Wiki article(s?) and write a paper demonstrating how you would improve them, including citing sources'. That is what the students are doing, in any case, and if they are not actually making the edits there would be no disruption. That would hopefully decrease the anxiety some students feel when their work is reverted - how can they show they've completed the assignment when what they did was taken away again?! Anxious people can become irrational when confronted with a fear - I'm one of them, but at least I can walk away from Wikipedia without worrying about my grades! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime, I agree with you that classes need more support. As to welcome templates, yes we have many of them here and some are custom made. Ah ... your suggestion on how to manage disagreement (“simply step back from the discussion”) can sometimes be seen as “not engaging” (see below) ... I think your suggestions on how to improve course support are in line with my comments at the other two discussions, which I’ve highlighted above. You may want to continue the discussion there. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the only way to literally shut it down would be through some sort of ban (either of individual class projects, or of all of them). But the reality is that class projects are sometimes strong positives, so I don't think that we should do anything like that. Instead, the real problem is when, in a subset of class projects, we get instructors who do not engage responsibly with how to run a class on Wikipedia. For classes within the geographic remit of Wiki-Ed, the Wiki-Ed staff do an excellent (and underappreciated) job of making things work well. Here, however, the class is from Turkey, where WikiEd has no "jurisdiction". Perhaps WMF should change that. But as I've said at the Ed Noticeboard, our first step should be to try to get the instructor of this class to work with us. If that effort is rebuffed, then that will actually become an ANI issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, agree with you that class projects are sometimes strong positives. As noted by StartGrammarTime above, instructor of this class knows what they're doing, and IMO they’ve been working with us (for years I would say). You may want to join the other two discussions I’ve highlighted above to discuss further on how to aid our newcomers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You keep replying to me like I'm someone who doesn't get it, and should take more of an interest in these things from the perspective of helping student editors. I'm the primary author of WP:ASSIGN, and have been working on these issues at Wikipedia for well over a decade. I'm also a retired university professor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your long-term contribution to Wikipedia. I’m just replying to those who replied to me ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t like (non-voluntary) student editing either, I think it’s a crapshoot at best. Maybe we need to keep track of how many Wiki-Ed assignments actually result in appropriate encyclopedic content and how many result in uncited, amateurish student essays being dumped on Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST? If it’s even a plurality of the latter category we need to do something to dissuade inexperienced educators from inadvertently disrupting Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the Wiki Education Foundation only supports classes in the US and Canada (e.g., not Turkey). Also, being supported by an organization is not required. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes not only teenagers and retirees; it also includes students and teachers.

I think the proper comparison is against other newbies. Would you rather have an edit by a student with a textbook in hand and a teacher standing over his shoulder, or by a random kid? We see far less vandalism and self-promotion from class assignments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

By a random kid. Vandals aside, random kids who are editing in good faith tend to have a higher motivation for making good content than some college student dumping an essay on here so they can scrape a decent grade in class. They also tend to learn the rules quicker because they want to be here and aren't just forced on by the WMF's unending stream of bad ideas. Also, just the fact that they have a professor to grade them doesn't make it better; in many cases, the professor either isn't very interested in fixing their mistakes or themselves doesn't know how Wikipedia works very well. AryKun (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you are cleverer than to offer a false dichotomy like "Would you rather have an edit by a student with a textbook in hand and a teacher standing over his shoulder, or by a random kid?" Or an unfair comparison like "We see far less vandalism and self-promotion from class assignments". So, we can't be upset about this because (a) random kids and (b) vandals. Comparing to newbies is not a "proper comparison". No newbie ever opened their as yet unread class textbook, on a subject they are only beginning to learn, skipped to chapter 10, read a paragraph, and plagiarised it onto Wikipedia as a random factoid in order to try to get the 3 marks it had been assigned. It is a repeated theme of these complaints that the students are compelled to edit, unlike every other kind of editor we want to get, and their teachers are ignorant about Wikipedia and have zero intention of supervising or fixing the edits. And the teacher isn't standing over their shoulder, but asks their fellow students to PR the work. And mostly the student doesn't have a textbook but has Google and Pubmed and not a clue how to use them. Look at the opening post of this discussion. A student found https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31760407/ on the internet, an abstract summary of a medical paper, and did Select All. Copy. Paste. This is not what newbies do.

WhatamIdoing, perhaps compare your argument with paid editing? Lets see how it sounds... Would you rather have an edit by a professional who was paid to insert factual and legally sound information about a company, than vandalism and libellous tittle tattle from some aggrieved ex-customer? We see far less vandalism and bonkers mind-bendingly stupid biomedical shit from editors who are paid to write. And would you rather have an editor who only got paid after their customer had read the Wiki page and was pleased with it, or a teacher who is far too busy and has no intention of reviewing the edits, and sets "peer review" as an assignment for the class or assumes other Wikipedians will clear up the mistakes. I don't think you'd find any support for that kind of argument. There are fundamental flaws with class editing that can theoretically be mitigated by a very high level of supervision and ability by their teachers and classroom assistants, just as there are fundamental flaws with paid editing that could theoretically be mitigated if companies were altruistic and fair in a competitive world. We decided long ago that paid editing couldn't realistically be made to work. -- Colin°^Talk 09:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Colin, thanks for spotting that out. I think that paper is released under the free CC BY 4.0 license. The new editor probably see wordings like “Free fulltext” at Pubmed and thought that direct copy and paste is ok. Of course proper attribution should have been given when pasting. They probably had finished the Wikipedia training modules, but like any other training in the world, there’s no guarantee that one won’t make mistakes after being trained. I hope they were given a welcome message or something similar, with relevant reminders, before they made that edit. I believe it’s just a good faith careless mistake. As to “This is not what newbies do.” ... well ... when I was a newbie ... ok ... I forgot. But of course, like this newbie, I was acting out of good faith, plus much more ignorance ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld, I think you are trying too hard to defend it. We don't copy paste on Wikipedia and a CC BY 4.0 licence doesn't let you do that either. Our editing policy is clear: "research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". A class that isn't taught that they must do that, isn't being taught. I am absolutely with you that many editors forget what it is like to be a newbie, and I wish some editors reacted differently.

Looking over the education noticeboard discussion I see the teacher has said "my students are afraid of editing Wikipedia and then during their editing experience some felt discouraged and quite exhausted due to some unfriendly approach or comments from some users" and later "feel quite exhausted with the current situation, which I find quite judgemental" and "I will not comment on this anymore". I previously commented over at WT:MED that the response one of their students got was imo offensive, factually incorrect and misguided, particularly in their attitude that graduate students shouldn't be editing.

The problem is the teachers. This one is clearly out of their depth, and if they have actually disengaged with the community, then probably their account should be blocked and the students informed that further edits in this class assignment will simply be reverted.

I think it may be time to have a policy that waking up one morning and deciding to run a class assignment on Wikipedia will get you blocked and a request from the community sent to your supervisor. That first and foremost Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and using it for class homework is not in our spirit the same as using it for paid promotional editing is not in our spirit. If there is a consensus that some editors think there are ways of making it work, via WikiEd, then that should be mandatory.

Students at university join clubs where they do activities on a voluntary basis. Could we not encourage universities to move over to that model, where students are encouraged to add their knowledge and guided by older students and graduates who have been there done that? I would love to see more graduate students edit Wikipedia. I am now wondering, based on the remarks by this teacher, and previous experience, whether class assignments actually put students off of the project. Like how some dreary war poem you were made to study for O-grade English put you off poetry. -- Colin°^Talk 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I need some experts to explain to me what this is:

• Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?
  • wmf:Terms of use#7c

Your post is somewhat too long (for me) and I probably need much time to digest it. I probably won’t be replying (soon) with a long block of text, as I’m already described as “defending too hard”. I hope no one would say I’m “disengaged”.

IMO we all make mistakes, and we are all responsible for our *own* mistakes. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Only the first paragraph is a direct reply to you. The rather obscure page you link to should not be on any students "Cheat Sheet" on how to edit Wikipedia. That's advanced-level stuff which the essay you link to should probably more explicitly warn about. Copy/paste not ever how Wikipedia should be edited. That essay is really the outcome of lots of nerdy folk saying "Yes but it is legal if you do X/Y/Z" and everyone else saying "Nobody ever does X/Y/Z and it isn't how we write an encyclopaedia, which should be summarising our sources in our own words, but if you keep insisting...". I believe Jimbo once had something to say on that matter, which is along the same lines that Wikipedia should be written by us, in our words. -- Colin°^Talk 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations is full of copyvios by non-students. You've found one possible copyvio (and definitely inappropriate edit). That doesn't convince me that students have more of a problem with copyvios than non-student newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotally I believe from an editor perspective that the way WikiEd works nowadays is quite helpful and effective. There are standard processes and professors actively engage. If they do not, the WikiEd representatives do, both in specific cases and in more general questions (eg. the interaction of courses with DYK). That shows that these sorts of editorial assignments can work (although as mentioned above we don't really have a comprehensive review). The issue outside of that is meshing the tangle of en.wiki culture with the workings of external bodies. It can be hard for these to mesh well (it's hard enough sometimes shifting between en.wiki and meta.wiki). Fixing this is tricky. On the en.wiki side, there could possibly be guidelines/policies on what the expectations are, especially for instructors. However, this would still rely on ad-hoc adherence/monitoring for each case. On the external side, fixing the needed resources in any systematic way, including the off-wiki training resources that these courses need to use, would require someone who is quite familiar with en.wiki but also has a long-term commitment to working with these educational programs. This is something that would be near-impossible for a casual volunteer, would likely be largely thankless, and would also be volunteering to be the lightning rod for whenever a program goes a bit wrong. Further, unless this was somehow preserved institutionally, much of it would disappear whenever the poor soul responsible moves onto more welcoming pastures. CMD (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

A group of German IPs ([74], [75],[76],[77] and more) are acting kind of incivil (some) at Talk:Aramaic. Their edits has been reverted by me and another user (who also informed the IPs on this on talk). Shmayo (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Reporting in here, since I'm involved and mentioned.) — Remsense诉 11:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I urge the admins to review the entire conversation at the Aramaic talk page before judging, especially the examples of manipulative edits by user Shmayo. He/She has been involved in countless edit-warrings for a reason. User Shmayo has, with false claims, sidelined dozens of users over the past years to the point where creating an account no longer seems worthwhile for many and has thereby unjustly gained trust, which he is now abusing. Please do not be misled by his long-standing presence on Wikipedia.2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)